George Lakoff of the The Rockridge Institute examines what Alan Greenspan's admission that "the Iraq war is largely about oil" means for America's troops and for the people of Iraq:
[...] Greenspan even advised Bush that "taking Saddam Hussein out was essential" to protect oil supplies.
Saddam was probably extorting too much baksheesh in the 'oil for food' scam and the OCs were pissed off about it.
Yes, we suspected it. In a deep sense, many of us knew it, just as those in Washington did. But now it's in our face. Greenspan put the mother of all facts in front of our noses, and we can no longer be in denial. The US invaded Iraq for the oil.
'Suspected' my ass. We've known this all along.
Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed. Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day, month after month, year and year — and for some, forever! Children growing up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces — for oil company profits.
And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, more maimed, and millions made refugees. For oil profits.
Mr. Lakoff has a coupla paragraphs about the
But none of this will work without military protection for the oil companies. That is what would keep us there indefinitely. The name for this is our "vital interests."
What is most frightening is that they may mean what they say, that they may have a concept of "victory" that makes sense to them but not to the rest of the country. If the goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the next 30 years, then any result guaranteeing oil profits for American oil companies would count as "victory." Suppose the present killing and chaos were to continue, forcing us to keep our troops there indefinitely, but allowing the oil companies to prosper under our protection. That would be a "victory." Or if the Iraqi army and police force were to develop in a few years and keep order there protecting American investments and workers, that too would be "victory." If the country broke up into three distinct states or autonomous governments, that too would be "victory," as long as oil profits were guaranteed and Americans in the oil industry protected. And it doesn't matter if a Republican president keeps the troops there or a Democratic president does. It is still an oil company "victory" — and a victory for Bush.
That's the crux of the biscuit right there, folks. Screw the Constitution, screw the American people and everybody else, break laws, commit war crimes - none of it matters as long as Bush's bros get more and more money. Whenever Bush decides to leave office - IF he decides to leave office - he'll still be in the awl bidness and still be beholden to the OC people who've gotten him this far without any actual brains or talent on his part. If it weren't for them, he'd be goin' "Want fries with that?" for a living.
I say again, we've known that this Iraq war & occupation have been all about OIL from the get-go. So have an awful lot of other folks, both the good and the bad. Whatever his motives for saying what he said, I'm glad Greenspan spoke out. His is a voice that people listen to. Even the MSM.